Those “Gillard AWU scandal” stories

(Apart from those who would never vote for Gillard in a blue fit who are desperately hoping that one of them will at some point contain some kind of specific allegation and some evidence that the PM did something wrong 17 years ago that has anything to do with her being PM now, obviously.)

No?

Yeah, me neither. Just skip them now, and avoid any paper that, by placing one on the front page, is telling me that everything else inside is even less worth my attention.

Carry on wasting your time then, media and Liberal Party.

Oh, and just so you know what effect your obsession with this non-story has – it increasingly conveys that you’re really not all that confident in your attacks on what an “incompetent failure” she’s actually been in office. If someone has a good argument against a government policy, they don’t spend all their time on 17 year old smears that months and months of desperate effort still haven’t managed to turn into an actual allegation of wrongdoing.

Yes this is Unionland. It doesn’t matter that we have a devious PM who was literally in bed with a shonky unionist who ripped off hundreds of thousands of dollars of members’ money. It doesn’t matter whether the PM did things which make her unfit to practice law and it doesn’t matter whether she benefited financially from the scam organisation she helped set up. We shouldn’t inquire into any of that.

This is Unionland where crooked unionists feather their own nests at their members’ expense while holding high office in the Labor party and the union movement. And when any evidence of wrongdoing comes to light they can count on the support of the PM who will express her complete confidence in them. The more ambitious union hacks can then look forward to a Senatorial sinecure, living large at public expense.

Meanwhile any honest person who seeks to expose Unionland corruption has their lives destroyed by union thugs – it’s the Labor way. Ask the Botany Aldermen who stood up to Brereton’s shady land deal. He became a Federal minister and they were drummed out of the party and had their reputations and careers destroyed. Or ask Gillian Sneddon who exposed the ALP pedophile Orkopolous (what is with the ALP and pedophiles anyway?) or ask Kathy Jackson or Bob Kernohan who tried to expose the AWU scandal and declined the bribe of a seat in parliament and was beaten by Union thugs for his trouble.

Ever wondered why so many files in relation to the the AWU matter have gone missing from government agencies? No need to bother with that sort of nonsense. This is Unionland where the powerful do as they please and the rest of us get told to just move on – nothing to see here.

No we shouldn’t be concerned that a product of that rotten system, installed in her office by a coup of union powerbrokers, now runs the country. This is Unionland and the powerful piss in our faces with impunity. And we should lap it up.

Lefty – in all seriousness – how can you be completely uninterested in this story?

If its central premise is true – and our current PM knowingly set up a slush fund to divert member funds (intended for workplace safety) for union re-election purposes – don’t you think that’s a story worth pursuing?

More significantly, while the rusted ons might prefer to ignore these stories in the hope that they’ll go away the rest of the country is starting to pay more and more attention as the allegations against our PM mount up (and up, and up).

If this story was about Abbott I doubt there’d be a single commenter here arguing that it should be ignored. Lefty certainly wouldn’t be arguing that media outlets running it are unworthy of his attention.

Do you guys genuinely not realise the clear double-standard here – or have you convinced yourself that you really would be this blase if the same facts emerged about Abbott?

Gee whiz, the Lib supporters here are anxious for an ounce of truth to cling to in the smear campaign against the Prime Minister!.

If they want a real slush fund story they need look no further than Tony Abbott’s very real slush fund which he set up to get rid of Pauline Hanson, and he got away with it, when he should have been drummed out of the Parliament…..

Contrary to assertions Ms Gillard had handled the conveyancing of a property lived in by her then boyfriend, the article said the conveyancing file of legal firm Slater & Gordon showed it was run by a paralegal in another division of the firm.

It also revealed that while a cheque for more than $67,000 was written on the slush fund account as a part payment for the property, the cheque was deposited in a Perth bank branch and may never have been seen by anyone at Slater & Gordon.

Tony Abbott’s very real slush fund which he set up to get rid of Pauline Hanson, and he got away with it, when he should have been drummed out of the Parliament…..

Australians for Honest Government or something like that wasn’t it?

It was a disgrace – and Abbott has yet to properly account for being involved in sending an innocent woman to jail for political purposes. It was pure political thuggery and he should have paid a greater price for it than he has.

But none of that excuses Gillard’s involvement in creating a Union Slush Fund, nor renders the reporting of her actions irrelevant.

If its central premise is true – and our current PM knowingly set up a slush fund to divert member funds (intended for workplace safety) for union re-election purposes – don’t you think that’s a story worth pursuing?

If its central premise is true, there’s nothing left to pursue. You seem to have fallen for Boltian “logic”: I don’t have evidence that enables me to make a specific allegation of wrongdoing, but don’t you think we should investigate to try to find something to support these smears I’m engaging in?

No, they’re not credible. They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make a case alleging dishonest or otherwise improper conduct by the PM that stands up to the slightest scrutiny, and they’ve totally failed to make one.

More significantly, while the rusted ons might prefer to ignore these stories in the hope that they’ll go away the rest of the country is starting to pay more and more attention as the allegations against our PM mount up (and up, and up).

WOW THAT’S A LOT OF UP.

No, seriously, what’s your specific allegation of wrongdoing by the PM and the evidence for it?

Hint: the country will “start to pay more and more attention” if you can make your case in a paragraph.

What does that mean? New information is coming to light all the time. Gillard held an impromptu press conference when there was no journo present who was likely to ask her serious questions and now she doesn’t have anything more to answer?

Tell me this – why would she allow a slush fund intended for the private benefit of a few officials misappropriate the AWU name? Especially when the AWU was her client.

Usually if union officials want to set up an election fund they open a bank account. That would not work here as the bank at least would require evidence that the AWU consented to the use of its name. However, once an entity has AWU in its name then all the bank will require is its incorporation documents and evidence that the appropriate resolution has been passed and the signatories authorised. But I suppose a young and naive partner in a Law firm can’t be expected to know stuff like this.

And by appropriating the AWU name it became possible to convince companies to pay money into the fund.

This country is in a bad state when the PM can call up newspaper editors and get journos sacked for investigating her past involvement in shady matters.

Tell me this – why would she allow a slush fund intended for the private benefit of a few officials misappropriate the AWU name? Especially when the AWU was her client.

Maybe the “few officials” were actually the AWU officials who were instructing her on behalf of the AWU? Was the AWU her client directly? “Misappropriate the AWU name”? You’re going with a trademark misuse claim now?

Frankly I – and, I suspect, very many other voters – am tired of waiting for someone to make a credible case on this. If Gillard had colluded with fraudsters to defraud a client then she would have been dealt with at the time. Moreover, somebody would have ACTUALLY MADE THAT SPECIFIC CLAIM. But all there is is innuendo and suggestions and smears. Nothing stacks up. When you’re left resorting to BUT WHY DOESN’T THAT LAW FIRM STILL HAVE RECORDS FROM 17 YEARS AGO then you have nothing.

This country is in a bad state when the PM can call up newspaper editors and get journos sacked for investigating her past involvement in shady matters.

Don’t be silly. As you well know, the Prime Minister doesn’t have any authority to fire employees of The Australian or any other newspaper. They don’t have to fire people just because the PM rings up in a huff. If they hadn’t fired Milne after that phone call, there was precisely nothing Gillard could have done about that. It’s not Gillard’s fault that Chris Mitchell has no balls.

I wonder if anyone insisting on finding something, anything, in this has considered why the various limitations of actions statutes exist. Why there are limitations for civil actions and a bunch of other matters considered, essentially in a category to consider that you should not be eternally liable for something. My point here is two fold. First, the fatigue Lefty is complaining about is because this is an abuse of process. A person should not have to deal with constant innuendo by a partisan media – if it were anyone else it would be stopped. The PM is not acting to stop it because she fears political ramifications. Far from the ridiculous conclusion of SB that she could sack journos. Please, consider the reason we have limitations on actions.

The second point is that even if Gillard was, as someone put it on this thread “guilty” (although everyone keeps dodging the obvious question, guilty of what??) whatever she is to have done is likely to be outside prosecution reach. Not that we know what she has supposedly done because no one can say, they just try to infer and raise their eyebrows a lot and say things like, ‘seems sus don’t ya think?’

My concern is we have appalling behaviour, right now, by party representatives right now, in their capacity as an MP – and instead we focus on something that after almost 20 years no one can prove anything. I agree, Mondo, the PM’s integrity is important, but there is no comparable coverage of far more disturbing behaviour that occurs by MPs as MPs right now. And that is of course not including the intellectual aggravation that occurs every time B. Joyce opens his mouth.

No, seriously, what’s your specific allegation of wrongdoing by the PM and the evidence for it?

It would be defamatory (not to mention false) for me to make any specific allegation against the PM in the absence of conclusive proof or personal knowledge of events.

However what I suspect has happened is that she has knowingly helped her boyfriend set up a slush fund for the specific purpose of secretly diverting union money. The evidence for this is Gillard’s own words – she admits to doing this much.

Whether she was at all involved in (or had any knowledge of) her boyfriend’s subsequent theft of that money is an open question. One that I think is worthy of further investigation – but which you, obviously, do not.

Tell me Lefty – if it had emerged 10 years ago that John Howard had been involved in a shady deal as a Solicitor in the mid-90’s, in which it appeared that he may have assisted a personal friend to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars and been fired from his law firm as a result of it – you seriously believe that you would have insisted that the Australian media ignore the story and move on?

SB is not being disingenuous…..somebody once told me that the “greenies’ would stop me from growing Heirloom Tomatoes in my backyard. After all ,said this serious and half drunk man, they were “stopping everything else”! Natural’y I believed every word. Why would a man lie about something he pulled out of his own backside?

One of the strangest thing about the ‘AWU/Brucer/Giant Lizard’ hoo-hah is that everyone involved proposes the election of Tony Abbott. A person who while being a government minister organised a slush fund to clog up our courts with allegations against Pauline Hanson and others involved with One Nation. While Pauline Hanson and ONP have degraded Australia through their vile propaganda, they did not deserve the well-funded pursuit. If The Australian/Tories/Fruitloops really opposed to slush funds or manipulation of the political process would drop Tony Abbott like a hot brick.

Narcotic, limitation of action statutes generally don’t apply to criminal fraud. If you want to know why this matter has not been pursued you might ask the subsequent AWU leadership who decided to bury this matter. Or you might ask Bob Kernohan who was beaten by Unionland thugs for trying to pursue it.

“A person should not have to deal with constant innuendo by a partisan media”

If she wont tell us exactly what happened people are entitled to draw their own conclusions from that. She deserves all the innuendo she gets.

“whatever she is to have done is likely to be outside prosecution reach”

Who gives a shit if she gets off on a technicality? I’m interested to know what actually happened. Hollingsworth was never likely to be convicted of anything, but that did not stop the mongrel left from hounding him from office. Funnily enough they have gone silent now.

When decent people see that sort of Unionland corruption they are generally revolted and would like to know what actually happen. Gillard and her lackeys would like everyone to shut up and go away, right Jeremy?

Marek: “National Textiles, anybody?”

Spot on! John Howard looking after the interests of his brother, paying out the workers who had to sign a document which, among other things, meant that ASIC was not required to investigate the conduct of the directors. Utterly sickening, and one of many reasons Howard was not fit to be PM.

Davoe, you appear to have completely missed the point. The objectionable things about Gillard/AWU slush fund are:

1. It misappropriated the AWU name, without which the fraud could not have been perpetrated. I cannot understand how a lawyer could have allowed this to happen. Even if Bruce “Rooter” Wilson had said it was OK, it was still obviously and blatantly wrong for the AWU name to be used in this way. The interests of a cabal getting re-elected has nothing to do with the interests of the AWU or its members and the AWU name should not have been used for that purpose. Even assuming Gillard did not know of the real purpose, no lawyer with even the most rudimentary appreciation of legal ethics should be involved in this sort of arrangement.

2. The Gillard/AWU slush fund was used as an instrument of fraud. Abbott’s was not.

Indeed davoe, if these groups were really worried about the conduct of politicians they also need look no further than question time and the variety of responses/acts MPs have done within their capacity as an MP – which is far more relevant as to the question of whether they can be trusted as an MP or not.

Does anyone here seriously contend that was a story the media should not have pursued? That it was in the past and therefore irrelevant to the political landscape at the time? That any media outlet reporting it was identifying itself as unworthy of attention?

Just a modicum of consistency would be nice. If you all yell and scream that 15 year-old allegations of fraud on the part of the current Prime Minister must be ignored then you bind yourself to the same position when allegations are raised against the next Prime Minister (and the one after, and the one after that, etc).

Unless you are happy to change your principles depending on who is in power and to just admit that you’re a monumental hypocrite.

My primary concern Mondo is that it is a distraction from completely obscene conduct demonstrated by current MPs in their capacity as an MP (ie it infects public policy and thus the public interest is harmed). For example, Barnaby Joyce (just everytime he speaks); Abbott and his sexist pals; Roxon and her obsession with injustice; Plibersek not defending health from Swan’s lying mittens; state health MPs taking partisan lines rather than defending their electorates – it goes on and on and harms people daily.

The second point I have is with regard to limitations of actions. Do you get that limitation of actions is a GOOD thing? For one thing, this is all civil action space – so even if there was a direct connection, is this not a waste of public resources if it has no prospect of prosecution? Secondly, at what point does constant ‘investigation’ become merely harassment, particularly when it is investigation and trial by media simultaneously.

To be clear, to ensure I answer your question Mondo, I agree that if Gillard was shown to be dishonest or fraudulent or in breach of her duties then the knowledge of that is in the public interest; but my question to you is at what point would you deem the treatment merely harassment? Police don’t want it. AFP said nothing there. At what point should relief be given to any citizen that is being smeared relentlessly with allegations that have only basis in innuendo motivated not by justice or public interest, but by political factions. Bring me proof or bring me a credible investigation (by authorised parties eg police) and I’ll say, yep, no problem. PM deserves it and the public deserves to know. But we don’t have that. We have raised eyebrows and winks. We have smoke and mirrors, nothing that would stand up in any form of court or tribunal.

So I ask you, Mondo, how long do you think they should be able to keep pursuing this? Another 10 years? 20? Until she is dead? After? At what point do you think a person ought to be relieved? If after another 20 years, if they still have nothing on Gillard – would you agree that perhaps this was harassment? If investigation actually finds the complete contrary – that she was not involved, would you agree the media ought to have dropped it sooner?

Instead we have actual problems going on with actual MPs right now and there is no coverage of it because there is no vendetta to prosecute.

My primary concern Mondo is that it is a distraction from completely obscene conduct demonstrated by current MPs in their capacity as an MP (ie it infects public policy and thus the public interest is harmed).

That same complaint can be made about every single investigation into past misconduct by a public official narc. If you’re concerned that the Gillard scandal is a distraction then why weren’t you concerned that the Tony Abbott punching a wall scandal was a distraction? Or the National Textiles scandal was a distraction?

Why is it only a ‘distraction’ when the scandal impacts a Labor politician?

but my question to you is at what point would you deem the treatment merely harassment?

When Julia Gillard leaves politics and is nonetheless still hounded over this issue as a private citizen. I would consider it harassment then, but while she remains our PM then this line of enquiry is valid. It may not be valid to you and it may not be valid to me, but if the Australian voters want to know whether our PM participated in a massive fraud then who are we to insist they just shut up and move on to other issues.

Bottom line is that in a free country, with a free press, there are going to be times when the media decides to pursue stories that are politically irrelevant or uncomfortable to one side in the political spectrum. You should celebrate this rather than condemning it – because when Abbott is PM you sure as shit don’t want the arguments you’re making now thrown back in your face as reasons not to investigate his past misconduct.

Don’t get me wrong Mondo, I agree that we should investigate something that has merit. And I am glad we have a media that is free to pursue and investigate anyone regardless of their position. I don’t care which side of politics it is – I merely point to the complete lack of any evidence and its ongoing nature. Again, I ask you to consider – which you have not yet – the rationale of the limitation of actions. In our free country, it is designed to enable a person to not be unduly harassed for all eternity.

From the evidence I’ve seen to date, this would be considered frivolous/vexatious conduct against Gillard. Compare this, say, with the very short attention paid to Abbot for something he actually did (the punch). Or the very real sexist jibes made every freaking day by members of Abbot’s shadow cabinet. Is it not just as relevant to our PMs character if they committed fraud or if they resort to violence? Is it not relevant to our MPs character if they believe that over 50% of the population is just doesn’t have the ‘physiology or temperament’ to be anything but slaves – particularly if they act on that belief in making and voting on policy?

If they had something solid enough to forward to police, I’d welcome that. I’d welcome the condemning media attention of actual evidence. Instead, because they have nothing, they go for a trial by media. And lets be honest, the media coverage isn’t Watergate, it is partisan point scoring. It is all ‘lets fill the gaps with our imaginations’. Unfortunately, the gaps happen to be any evidence of wrong doing.

It IS in the public interest to know if Gillard has committed fraud. It is not in the public interest, however, to reverse the presumption of innocence in order to run a partisan smear campaign. It is not in the public interest for an innocent person to be treated as if guilty with nothing to show they are. It is not in the interests of justice – if that is what the investigators really want – to overly publicize it. One only need look at the recent troubles in Vic where a criminal trial was close to being undermined by similar media attention and vigilantism.

So do you want justice, or blood Mondo? The public interest is in presumption of innocence and right to a fair hearing. Do you disagree with this?

Btw, to answer to your question: If you’re concerned that the Gillard scandal is a distraction then why weren’t you concerned that the Tony Abbott punching a wall scandal was a distraction? Or the National Textiles scandal was a distraction?

a) what makes you think I wasn’t concerned these were a distraction?

b) how long did these ‘investigations’ go for in the media? The Abbot one was very short.

I see this blog still has its resident leftist Mondo, and the delusional SB.

SB get over it mate, Gilard is going to be reelected what part of that don’t you understand? All this utter bullshit about union slush funds will amount to five fifths of F.A.

SB, like Mondo your naivety knows no bounds. This is just another smear on Gillard because the polls are changing and Abbott the poor soul needs something, anything in fact to get elected. Anyone thinking this hasn’t got the vile smell of the Liberal party dirt unit all over it, is a gold plated F*&^ Wit.

Liberal response thus far

Boat people = Fail.
Carbon Tax = Fail etc. etc. etc.

Clive Palmer= Friend of the ALP ho ho he he.

Even if Rudd returns, Labor will win, Abbott is unelectable end of story.

I love it Lynot – yours is argument by pure assertion. I am right because I am right – and you all just need to get over it.

What happens to your worldview if Abbott actually wins I wonder? Do you self-reflect on how you came to so forcefully believe in what is really just a projection of your own views, or do you just seamlessly shift to a new set of petulant demands about what everyone should accept as incontrovertible truth?

I’m guessing you’re more of a “seamlessly shift” kind of guy . . . . and everyone else just needs to get over it.

Narc – IMO there’s nothing fundamentally wrong in the way you’re viewing this issue provided you remain consistent in your application of the principles you are laying out. But I fear that challenge is an almost impossible one to successfully meet.

Too many times in my history as an observer and commenter on politics I have caught myself relying on the thinnest of factual differences to justify an inconsistent approach to political principle. I think if we were all honest we would admit that, as political partisans, this is something we all do at least occasionally.

But rather than engaging in the ultimately self-deceptive game of finding excuses for our own inconsistency it is, in my view, far more honest to simply try to eliminate it – i.e. stake out a political principle and defend it.

If you accept that it is OK for the press to chase down stories from a politician’s past then I can’t see any valid reason to retroactively smother that principle with convenient exceptions like:

– except when the investigation takes longer than (an arbitrary time limit that I’ve made up); or
– except where I deem the allegations to be unworthy of further investigation; or
– except when I view the investigations as a distraction from more important things.

If you accept the principle of a free press then you must also accept that it will spend at least some of it’s time acting in a partisan manner and/or chasing down stories that are politically inconvenient (for whatever reason).

The difference here is that Gillard is PM. Her past conduct is of interest to voters for that reason. In fact (whether wittingly or not) she played a central and crucial role in serious fraud committed by her partner. As much as she and those on her side of the political fence might wish it away, the matter will fester until we get some clear answers.

It would have been better to have had the Royal Commission at the time the few honest unionists called for it. But that is not the way things work in Unionland. The problem is that at some point the AWU decided to stop co-operating in the investigation and, like so much of what goes on in Unionland, the matter was swept under the carpet.

Clearly the ALP has no interest in this sort of corruption being exposed, which is precisely why it paid Thomson hundreds of thousands of dollars for his legal expenses. If Thomson had not been politically significant we would be none the wiser about his shenanigans and former ALP President Williams would still be living large without a care in the world.

The only chance we have to root out Unionland corruption is when the ALP (an entity controlled by union powerbrokers) is not in power.

It is only when the Liberal government in NSW properly funded ICAC that the stinking cesspit of the great mining scam began to be investigated. The people of NSW were ripped off to the tune of $100m and Labor powerbrokers profited. While this may be business as usual in Unionland, sooner later there has to be a reckoning.

That’s the ALP for you – a party of spivs and crooks, but all that the small-minded political hacks can do is scream AbbottAbbottAbbott. Character assassination is the only card they have left to play and apparently there are plenty sycophants ready to join this shrill chorus of denial.

” I love it Lynot – yours is argument by pure assertion. I am right because I am right – and you all just need to get over it.”

Bollocks Mondo it is an opinion just like yours. You see my “Lefty Fraud” that’s what we all do, we get the information, crunch that information with a sprinkling of our own bias, and presto an opinion.

You may have some people fooled on this ere blog about the motivation of your comments but not I. You are easier to read than a cheap paper back novel.

You do not need to be a rocket scientist to see the opposition and the media they own and direct, to deduce they are out to get Gillard and bring down the government. That you have sided with the smear campaign currently against Gillard and think it needs further investigation just shows you are either as naive as the day is long, or a Liberal party stooge. I like others who follow your prattle, thinks the latter applies.

I have been following the culture of conservatism for near on fifty years, I know they will go to any length to get and keep government, the smearing of Gillard is par for the course for these f*&*^%$ so spare me your Modo knows best routine. Blogdom has enough right wing know alls already.

Get with the program, Mondo. If you don’t absolutely hate AbbottAbbottAbbott, if you don’t toe the party line or if you dare to think for yourself then you are a Liberal party stooge. So there! Welcome to Unionland.

the matter will fester until we get some clear answers the problem being it wouldn’t matter if we could get in a time machine and film the whole thing – no one will accept any answer other than guilty. That is the problem of reversing the presumption of innocence and the problem with trial by media. What I see is great injustice occurring at the moment – notwithstanding there is a very real and serious issue regarding the corruption, but pinging it on someone because it is politically convenient is not justice.

convenient exceptions like I don’t think I’m using convenient exceptions Mondo, so we’ll have to agree to disagree there. I’m not using ‘arbitrary’ or ‘made up’ timelines, I’m referring to actual limitation periods on actions that exist for very good reasons. I am also asking is there a limit to how much we will sit back and let someone be harassed without standing up for them? I don’t care much for Gillard so I can happily say I’m not taking a partisan line, I just don’t care much for trial by media or presumptions of guilt. It is unconstitutional and without any justice or dare I say it, fairness (not that fairness has a place in politics).

I agree that the character of our current PM is relevant and of public interest – I would extend that to all MPs on both sides (hence I disagree with the view that Gillard is relevant news but Abbott isn’t, which is what I sense from SB, but SB can feel free to correct me on that). I also agree that a free press that can investigate anyone is important – but I again ask at what point is it simply harassment? It is a legitimate question to ask – rights have to be balanced, so at what point do we say, look, you have been trampling on x’s rights for too long to justify your ‘freedoms’? I don’t have an answer but limitations of actions and equitable doctrines (eg laches) have developed over centuries to help us. We need not start from square one.

This has been going on for a long time and despite there being inadequate evidence for any real prosecution and actually evidence to the contrary, none of it matters because people just want blood. It wouldn’t matter if everyone involved said Gilllard wasn’t – because people just don’t like her and want a reason. Hence my concern it is just a distraction – it is just as much an attempt at character assassination as the ALP stupidly tries with Abbott. We’d all be better off if we actually had a look at some policies occasionally. Distraction isn’t a convenient exception, it is a legitimate concern that we are being misled/distracted for alt purposes.

I also unfortunately need to agree to an extent with SB’s last post. There are many on this blog that are completely intolerant of any view that doesn’t agree with theirs. I’d correct SB though and say that he’ll find the same intolerance on a right wing site and that it isn’t limited to one side :)

Narcotic: “I’d correct SB though and say that he’ll find the same intolerance on a right wing site and that it isn’t limited to one side “

I’m well aware of that. I don’t have a “side” – see my earlier comment about National Textiles – and I don’t hang around on right wing sites. I’d prefer to understand different points of view.

“I also agree that a free press that can investigate anyone is important”

So why can the PM phone up the editor and get journos sacked for mentioning this scandal? Gillard is beneath contempt.

Here is one of the few honest men in all of this:

But just watch – the ALP faithful will be smearing and vilifying Kernohan soon enough. That is their way. Any decent ALP follower would have welcomed a Royal Commission but they were (and still are) too busy trying to sweep it all under the carpet. That is the way it is in Unionland – the honest are beaten and broken – careers and lives destroyed – and the grubs make it to the top of the heap. And the lefties love it – even when one of their own, like Mondo, speaks out he is attacked by the dumb ideologues who can’t even think beyond short term electoral gain.

Oh SB ain’t you the one? National Textiles! Your having a laugh, even you can’t justify right wing nepotism on that scale. But there was the matter of lots of workers votes wasn’t there? Ol John played the usual blinder, cunning as a shit house rat our John. Like when he gave away buckets of cash to all those pregnant teenagers. You know the ones SB, the daughters of poor people mostly, who conservative religious wackos like to get the ankles of up behind their shoulders on a Friday night, then go down the pub and start moaning about the social welfare costs. That’s of course after they go and confess their souls to their local priest. That’s providing they can get into the confessional. Young boys these days tend to be a bit tubby. I’m going to wretch my guts up just thinking about it.

Unionland wow a new word for the lexicon. Still I’ll cut ya some slack SB you hate lefties as much as I hate right wing faux Christian cracker jacks.

ideologues you say? Jesus, the pot and all that.

OBTW I forgot to mention, the Gillard persecution is dead in the water it ain’t gonna fly, finny f&*% and all that.

Lynot: “National Textiles! Your having a laugh, even you can’t justify right wing nepotism on that scale. “

Did you read what I said above? “Utterly sickening, and one of many reasons Howard was not fit to be PM.”

The point is that I abhor political sleaze from either side.

“SB you hate lefties”

Not so! I hate stupidity and partisan dishonesty. I like the commenters here. I even have a soft spot for you and Buns. It’s just that sometimes you get things arse up and I have to set you to rights.

Most lefties are well intentioned. Its just that they seem to decide matters based on the little lefty bleeding hearts rather than on reason. That is why leftist ideas have inflicted so much misery on so many over the years. There is nothing wrong with some social compassion, but if fringe nutjobs like the Greens get near the levers of power they will completely fuck things up.

A Royal Commission SB? Really? On some possible involvement but not actually committing fraud some 17 years ago?

My god, talk about a waste of money. You talk about lefties wanting to ‘destory the economy’ with their good will. To have a Royal Commission is a completely disproportionate expense. Investigation is one thing (that mind you has found nothing) but that? I’m all for a Royal Comission into something as serious and all over systematic as the sexual abuse of children, but on something regarding an indiviual or a single organisation you don’t like? That is ridiculous. If lefties good will will bankrupt us, so will righties hate.

I also agree that a free press that can investigate anyone is important – but I again ask at what point is it simply harassment? It is a legitimate question to ask – rights have to be balanced, so at what point do we say, look, you have been trampling on x’s rights for too long to justify your ‘freedoms’?

I don’t understand what you’re talking about here narc – what ‘rights’ of Gillard have been trampled?

Gillard is still innocent of these accusations under law. As far as I’m aware the police have not even investigated her, let alone done anything to curtail her rights as an Australian citizen.

Are you really trying to paint a sustained media campaign aimed at a politician as some sort of breach of human rights?

Lynot: You do not need to be a rocket scientist to see the opposition and the media they own and direct, to deduce they are out to get Gillard and bring down the government.

Of course the right-wing media is out to get Gillard – everybody knows and understands this. Just as we all understand that the left-wing media was out to get Howard, and will be out to get Abbott if he is elected PM.

That’s how a democracy works Lynot – people are free to align themselves with a political agenda and to then pursue it (your bleating and whinging notwithstanding). The media are no different, nor should they be. Look at the website we are having this discussion on for crying out loud – Lefty is an openly partisan advocate for progressive politics (and the Greens) and that’s a good thing.

Whether you choose to believe it or not I am a left-winger. Obviously I don’t subscribe to your cry-baby “it’s OK when we do it but it’s just not fair when they do it” hypocrisy, but that hardly disqualifies me from being a progressive.

Narcotic: “A Royal Commission SB? Really? On some possible involvement but not actually committing fraud some 17 years ago?”

There was actual fraud, massive fraud, in that case. Workers were defrauded of up to a million dollars. And given the HSU debacle which involved even more, it seems such fraud is commonplace in Unionland. We need a Royal Commission now as much as ever. As I said, decent Labor people at the time called for a Royal Commission, but then, as is standard practice in Unionland, the AWU decided to bury the whole affair. Kernohan, who was a decent unionist wouldn’t stay quiet so he was viciously beaten up and made a pariah. That is what honesty gets you in Unionland whereas others involved who were more deeply involved in the fraud or more interested in keeping it all quiet have ascended to high office. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. There should be a Royal Commission into union corruption.

Bill Ludwig still sits in parliament after having the AWU pay his legal fees in a private matter not involving the union at all. Why should AWU members pay for that and why should that incompetent fool still sit in parliament? And why should ALP members have hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on Craig Thomson’s defamation action?

You may be happy to stand by and see workers have millions of dollars stolen by crooked union officials, but this problem is endemic. This stinking swamp of corruption needs to be drained.

S.B., your burst on National Textiles has all the equivalence of a murderer proclaiming to the world he/she advocates capital punishment. I read your comments, they have the air of insincerity you are known and loved for.

As for movies, indeed one for you could be a Clint Eastwood who talks to empty chairs of Dirty Harry fame ” A legend in your own mind”

But to the matter at hand. Corruption is well and truly mostly the domain of the right. I mean, the AWB scandal makes Gillards alleged corruption look like chicken feed. ICAC in N.S.W. has dossiers on corrupt Liberal party members, that could well be confused with the Sydney telephone book. So spare me your diatribe about the corruption within the left. T

You know you can’t make this shit up. ” The left media” Who pray tell is that then? A few blogs, Green Left Weekly. What a load of unmitigated twaddle.

The Liberal party has the main stream media in this country in its back pocket. To deny this salient fact, borders on the barking bonkers. That people are allowed to pursue a political course of their choosing is obvious, please spare me your insults, and tell me something I don’t know. However, this does not include the main stream media, who only a total imbecile cannot see, have a right wing bias that is a scandal. It is that loaded against anything progressive, it is a wonder the Labor party gets in at all. Just goes to show you, most people are not as naive as you.

As for you being a progressive don’t make me laugh. You just keep saying it me ol China, some people will believe it no doubt.

Are you really trying to paint a sustained media campaign aimed at a politician as some sort of breach of human rights?
Not at all – and I agree with what you are saying. Perhaps I am not articulating myself well. I am concerned that the media ‘investigation’ will not stop. Ever. That unequivacal proof of innocence would still not stop or diminish the attack. That trial by media will be considered a good thing. That is my concern.

No SB, it is ‘righties hate’ that would spend millions of public dollars on a Royal Commission for their own self-aggrandizment.

Narcotic: “No SB, it is ‘righties hate’ that would spend millions of public dollars on a Royal Commission for their own self-aggrandizment.”

Ah, so that is why hateful righties Ian Cambridge and Robert McLelland were calling for a Royal Commission. It couldn’t be that they were concerned about Unionland corruption or about workers being ripped off or anything like that.

A Royal Commission then might have prevented the HSU debacle. But hey, those more interested in keeping these parasites in power don’t give a shit if the workers get ripped off do they, eh?

Eric, I only ever respond in kind. If you insult me I will insult you back. You should know this better than most given that your contributions to this site are generally content-free abuse.

Lynot – the only ICAC action currently underway in NSW is a broad ranging inquiry into corruption in the State Labor Party. At this point it looks like both Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald will be found guilty of massive fraud – and yet you ignore this completely and claim ICAC is instead investigating the Liberals! I hope others here can see as clealy as I can just how blind and dishonest your bias has made you.

SB – I agree that a royal commission into union corruption is well overdue – but that doesn’t detract from narc’s zinger. Fear and hate does seem to underpin much Right Wing policy – although Eric and Lynot are obviously trying to bring the Left into the running.

Narc – while I do agree that trial by media is something to be avoided I guess i just dont see the pursuit of a politician over allegations of past misconduct fitting that bill. Perhaps I am wrong, but when in doubt I think it’s best to favour media freedom.

I agree to an investigation into union corruption – such as Kennet’s suggestion of a judicial inquiry – but a Royal Commission is VERY expensive.

But hey, those more interested in keeping these parasites in power don’t give a shit if the workers get ripped off do they, eh?
That is laughable coming from the right that don’t give s hit if the workers get ripped off EVERYDAY through their policies. Even Abbott/Bishop were honest enough to say their campaign was about Gillard’s credibility and not about the union -why? Because they couldn’t give a stuff about the union or workers rights.

I’m not fully across the public interest value of the AWU (eg public funding). I understood that it was a union funded by members so surely corruption is an issue for members? Do we have Royal Commissions into proprietary companies when we don’t like what the directors do? Do we even have an inquirey? While I would think a union is a public interest matter than merits public interest/backing regarding an investigation into corruption (much like say, a university) I don’t think it is of the same sphere as say, Black Saturday or systemic child abuse that would warrent the seriously expensive task of a Royal Commission that, in the end, will only make recommendations the government need not accept/implement.

I think it is important to note at this point that there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING as a “right wing union” or “right wing unionist”. Mm-mm. Not at all. If you were previously a rabid right-winger and suddenly join a union or achieve power with union ranks, you are immediately and straight away a “leftist”.

Even those who display right-wing attitudes while part of a union are actually “leftist”. Whether they like it or not.

And union leaders and rank-and-file unionists are absolutely ONE AND THE SAME!! There is no distinction between the two. Nup. None.

Were you trying to disarm me before, SB? I will say this …, you are probably a decent person yourself. I will not back down from the hypocrisy statement, however I will concede the fact that all of us are guilty of that little foible from time to time.I don’t know which KD Lange album is best but I know ‘constant Craving’ is a great song!.

No. Corruption is a matter for the police. The problem here is that the union stopped co-operating with the police.

Do we have Royal Commissions into proprietary companies when we don’t like what the directors do?

A private company is limited to 50 members, so the proper comparison is with a public company. Unfortunately union officials are much less accountable to members than company directors are to shareholders and Shorten has said, surprise surprise, that he will not introduce similar rules for union officials. This is just a recipe for continued corruption, as was Shorten’s decision at the AWU not to pursue Wilson and Blewitt. So, under the existing Unionland rules we have a situation where the missing money has never been reclaimed and no one wants to look too deeply at it as too many of the people involved are today in high office. This stinks to high heaven and should be vigorously investigated.

Phil, it is always good to take the opportunity to share common interests even in the heat political battle. I wish our politicians could afford that luxury, but nowadays it seems that every word and gesture seems to be directed at the denigration of political opponents. Their spin doctors must have them believing that civility is weakness and any concession to the humanity of their opponents is fatal.

The commenters here have more in common than the sometimes shrill discussion discloses. People who broadly support free speech, personal liberty, due process and representative government, have much in common, even if there are progressive/conservative differences about how these things are implemented.

It is worth remembering that the real enemies of freedom are tyrants like the Kim and Castro families or the communist regime in China or those who would implement sharia law like the Muslim Brotherhood or the Taliban.

My concern, SB, is there is no push from Abbott, Bishop et al for an investigation into unions – just Gillard. I agree an investigation into the unions here is warranted (albeit as Kennett suggested a judicial inquiry given the cost of a royal comission).

Point taken SB, I was just pointing to that isn’t where his and Bishop’s attention is. And again, judicial inquiry would be proportionate. I know it might sound duplicative, but I’d rather a judicial inquiry conclude a royal commission is needed or not, than jump straight to a royal commission. They are just too damn expensive and should be reserved for matters of far more significance. In addition, in this case, it seems to me (I could be wrong) that the primary losers are the members (union members) not the public generally.

While I disagree that they are comparable to public companies merely due to their size (I think they in character still resemble private companies more), I do agree that the instrument for their incorporation is likely no longer appropriate because of their size – obviously something that should be in scope for any investigation (judicial or otherwise) in order to ensure appropriate governance and scrutiny. It reminds me of the community health centres in Vic* – when they were first set up they were so tiny that being an incorporated association was fine. But now they have stupid volumes of public money both for services and assets going through them and it was appropriate for their governance to be evaluated – the Government rightly concluded (imo) that they should become companies in order to have a more appropriate governance and accountability structure for that level of risk/funding/etc (to which the govt tied funding to that minimum governance structure as a condition).

*Btw there was no suggestion of corruption in the Vic CHCs, it was merely an example of where an organisation type had essentially outgrown its instrument of incorporation and it was appropriate to change that.

PS – Mondo a really great example of the ‘distraction’ that this has caused was the last week of question time wasted on this bull rather than actually holding the Govt to account for their retrospective cuts to state health funding (money already spent and committed via commercial contracts etc by health services).

It has been truly disappointing to watch both oppositions atm. The ALP in Vic chose party loyalty over their own state and rather than rightly criticise Swan’s dodgy figures (that not even the ABS will stand by) they waste the time attacking the Lib govt for actually being transparent about savings in the budget papers (despite that all health services know that the ALP applied hidden savings year on year and just didn’t tell anyone). Meanwhile the LibCo in the Feds didn’t stand up for the health services either, too busy point scoring.

Lose lose for health services in all states across the country with the Cth Govt taking funds retrospectively using bogus figures without any criticism due to the shocking state of our political discourse and media.

Search

Search for:

Disclaimer

The contents of this blog are entirely fictional (and often ridiculous), intended only to amuse, or to provoke lively, non-libellous discussion. Opinions expressed on the blog do not in any binding sense represent the views of any organisation of which the author is a member. Links to external sites should not be taken as endorsement of their content or views.